Bulltin
N° 607
Subject: ON REASON, REVOLUTION, AND COUNTER-REVOLUTION
IN THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF SOCIAL CONFORMISTS.
13
April 2014
Grenoble, France
Dear
Colleagues and Friends of CEIMSA,
It is not an original thought that
the ruling class today throughout the advanced industrial
societies have every interest in dumbing down
the population, to better “fit” them --as interchangeable parts-- into a high-tech system
of maximum profits, minimum wages, and repetitive work for a mind-numbing command economy,
where the only reward is to escape punishment.
Readers interested in the history of the degradation of work from craftsmanship to industrial labor could do worse that to read
Norman Ware’s classic book, The Industrial Worker,
1840-1860 (1924), to discover how our ancestors fought tooth and
nail to save their bodies and their minds from exploitation and ruin by a
ruthless industrial ruling class. They wanted the same thing that we today should be
demanding, namely, complete control over the means of production, placed directly
in the service of society and NOT for the private
profit of a few.
To save our minds and our bodies from
this onslaught, we must recognize that there is no neutral territory. The
monopoly of power today is such that the sources and the instrumentrs of power are entirely visible; the information
revolution has provided us with ample evidence and illustrations to enable us
to draw the necessary conclusions, free from illusions, on how to save
ourselves. If our human capacity to reason is diminished, it is only because of
elaborate efforts on the part of our corporate rulers to produce ‘false consciousness’ and an infinite number of escape routes to circumvent
rational exchanges. We have no one to blame but ourselves . . . . An early book
intended to contribute to the popular education of the masses (as distinguished
from bourgeois mystifications for future managerial elites) and to encourage the exercise
of rational thought and craftmanship among ordinary people is Lancelot Hogben’s
influential book, Mathematics for the Million,
How to master the Magic of Numbers (1936). The hope was (and is)
that ordinary people can learn to think creatively and for themselves,
and once this happens democratic socialism appears as the only viable route toward real social
improvements.
The 8 items below offer CEIMSA readers a look at the ideological and economic debacle that has stripped away the cover which once enshrouded the puppet shows used to animate the military/police state defending corporate interests, which always professes to ‘protect’ us from ourselves. Big business in its ruthless pursuit for maximum profits has wrecked havoc on the environment and on the lives of billions of people throughout the world. The economy of ‘artificial scarcity’ and the ideology of the ‘individuals against society’ has given rise to incompatible contradictions which are now apparent to vast numbers of people. How to get from here to there is now the question on the minds of thousands of millions of people, who have disabused themselves of ‘false consciousness’ and are now thinking for themselves and collectively discussing the important issues of how best to improve their lives. [See the open forums provided by sites such as ZNet and IOPS for more information about these growing networks of international dialogues.]
Item A.,
from Democracy Now!, is the April 11 broadcast devoted to
climate change and the need for a planned economy with social guarantees for
all.
Item
B., from the Real News Network, is a
video report by Chris Hedges on "Israel's War on American
Universities".
Item
C., from Michael Parenti, is a short statement explaining why some American
women vote Republican.
Item
D., from Jim O’Brien of Historians Against War, is a series of
recommended recent articles.
Item E.,
from Edward S. Herman, is an a article by Pepe
Escobar, first published in Asia Times, on the triangulation of the USA by Russia
and China over Ukraine.
Item
F.,
from The Real News Network, is a
3-part series reporting on Venezuela, the past and the present.
Item G., from Ed Herman, is an a article by Russ Baker, first
published April 10 in WhoWhatWhy, discussing
the new cover-up in Boston bombing saga—blaming Moscow.
Item H.,
from Information Clearing House, contain
two articles describing the growing divide within the American ruling class.
And finally, we invite CEIMSA
readers to watch the April 8 video discussion by public intellectual Noam Chomsky, responding in Cambridge,
Massachusetts to questions from an international Google audience on language and the significance of the Internet.
Noam Chomsky | Talks at Google
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3PwG4UoJ0Y
Sincerely,
Francis
Feeley
Professor
of American Studies
University
of Grenoble-3
Director
of Research
University
of Paris-Nanterre
Center
for the Advanced Study of American Institutions and Social Movements
The
University of California-San Diego
http://dimension.ucsd.edu/CEIMSA-IN-EXILE/
_______________
A.
From Democracy Now! :
Dates: 12 April 2014
Subject: The Environment Crisis and what to do about it.
Momentum
on Fossil Fuel Divestment Grows as Harvard Professors, Desmond Tutu Call for
Action
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/4/11/momentum_on_fossil_fuel_divestment_grows
"Years
of Living Dangerously": James Cameron, Matt Damon, Harrison Ford in TV
Climate Change Series
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/4/11/years_of_living_dangerously_james_cameron
"Imagine Living in a Socialist USA":
New Book Envisions Greater Democracy, World Without
Capitalism
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/4/11/imagine_living_in_a_socialist_usa
_______________
B.
From Richard Greeman & David Hookes :
Dates: 3 & 4 April 2014
Subject: The NSA, the FBI, and Tactics and Strategies for Whose ‘New World Order’?
Chris Hedges Speaks in Support of the Now Banned Students for Justice in
Palestine Chapter at Northeastern University.
Chris
Hedges on "Israel's War on American Universities" Full Event
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=11703
_______________
C.
From Jim O'Brien :
Dates: 10 April 2014
Subject: [haw-info] HAW Notes 4/10/14: Lemisch book available on-line; Links to recent articles of interest.
http://www.historiansagainstwar.org/
First, a note: Jesse Lemisch’s
long-out-of-print On Active
Service in War and Peace: Politics and Ideology in the American Historical
Profession (1975), based
on a paper he delivered at the 1969 AHA convention, is now available on-line.
Here are links to it on the History News Network site and Academia.Edu.
Links to Recent Articles
of Interest:
1.
"America's Coup Machine:
Destroying Democracy since 1953"
By Nicolas J. S.
Davies, AlterNet.org, posted April 8
Traces a pattern of US
interventions, drawing a parallel with happenings in present-day Venezuela
2.
By Lawrence S. Wittner, Huffington Post, posted April
8
The author is a
professor of history emeritus at SUNY Albany. This article concerns the
soon-to-be restored Golden
Rule and its predecessors.
3.
By Zbigniew Brzezinski, Frank Carlucci, Lee
Hamilton, Carla A. Hills, Thomas Pickering, and Henry Siegman, Politico, posted
April 8
Calls on the Obama administration
to resist unreasonable Israeli demands in the current negotiations
4.
By Chris
Hedges, Truthout.org, posted April 7
Lengthy review of Hasan Blassim's new book of short
stories, which Hedges calls "the most important book to come out of the
Iraq War"
5.
By Richard
Sale, Truthout.org, posted April 1
On the dynamics of the
Syrian civil war, and how they have changed over time
6.
"The Nativist
Origins of Philippines Independence"
By Richard Baldoz, Truthout.org, posted April 1
On the background of US
legislation agreeing to the independence of the Philippines
7.
"The 30-Year US/Iran Nuke
Standoff: We Started it in the Reagan Days"
By David
Stockman, "Stockman's Corner" blog, posted March 26
The author was director
of the Office of Management and the Budget under President Reagan.
8.
By John Feffer, Foreign
Policy in Focus, posted March 26
On the rise of far-right influences
in Russia
9.
"A Review of Manufactured
Crisis"
By Edward S. Herman, Z
Magazine, posted March 26
Review essay on Gareth Porter's new
book Manufactured Crisis: The Untold
Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare
10.
By Patrick
Cockburn, The Independent, posted March 21
Brings together all five
parts of the author's detailed series on the
failure of the War on Terror, with special focus on Saudi Arabia
11.
"Seven Decades of Nazi
Collaboration: America's Dirty Little Ukraine Secret"
Interview with Russ
Bellant, Foreign Policy in Focus, posted
March 18
___________
Thanks to Rosalyn Baxandall, Steve Gosch, Larry Wittner, and an
anonymous reader for suggesting articles included in the above list.
Suggestions can be sent to jimobrien48@gmail.com.
_______________
D.
From Michael Parenti :
Dates: 11 April 2014
Subject: [Clarity] GOP Women by Michael Parenti.
Francis,
I posted a slightly shorter version of
these brief remarks on my Facebook page.
mp
GOP Women
by Michael Parenti
Someone (a woman) asked why would any woman in her right mind
vote Republican. Here is a brief rendition of my
thoughts on that question:
GOP women who come from an affluent background are as interested in preserving
and advancing their class prerogatives and privileges as their men are. They
have money and servants and nannies and numerous other comforts and support
systems. And they live so well, travel to luxurious places and choice vacation
spots. They have their needs well met, shall we say, even no trouble getting an
abortion under the best conditions when they want one. They and their entire
family enjoy the top medical services. They send their kids to the best
schools. They wear the finest clothes and love the grand spacious houses they
live in.
One could go on. Struggling over feminist gender issues and wage equality is,
well, just not to their taste. Don't take my word for it,
ask Nancy Reagan or her affluent GOP
sisters.
Of course, my remarks do not explain why poorer, working class women vote GOP.
What they have is what we call "false consciousness" i.e., voting
against your class interests because your political (mis)understanding
has injected you with fears about gay marriage, or legal abortion, or
immigrants, or environmentalists who might get the factory shut down, or people
who are not super patriotic enough or not religious enough. So the upper crust
GOP women can be as wedded to their privileged life as their men, and the
poorer GOP women can be as misled and impassioned around deceptive issues as
their men. Fox news does an effective job on both groups.
__________
Michael Parenti, author of The Face of Imperialism and Waiting for Yesterday (an ethnic
memoir)
_______________
E.
From Edward S.
Herman :
Dates: 12 April 2014
Subject: How the Ukraine Crisis Has Drawn Russia and China Closer Together.
From: Robert S. Rodvik [rodrob@dccnet.com]
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 4:57 PM
To: Robert S. Rodvik
Subject:
How the Ukraine Crisis
Has Drawn Russia and China Closer Together
New Axis
in the House?
by Pepe Escobar
By the time you read this Russia
will have invaded Ukraine. Well, that’s what the Supreme Allied Commander of
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, US Air Force General Philip Breedlove,
is spinning. Breedlove Supreme says the Russians are “ready to go” and could
easily take over eastern Ukraine. Western corporate media have already dusted
off their Kevlar vests.
Now compare Breedlove Supreme with a
grown-up diplomat, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov,
who has called on NATO to please de-escalate the “unreasonable” warmongering
rhetoric, which also includes officially ending all civilian and military
cooperation with Russia and planning more military moves in Eastern Europe.
While NATO – shorthand for the
Pentagon’s European division – freaks out, especially via its outgoing
secretary-general, Danish patsy Anders Fogh
Rasmussen, let’s see where we really stand on the ground, based on leaks from
both Lavrov’s and US Secretary of State John Kerry’s
camps.
The heart of the matter – obscured
by a rainbow bridge of hysteria – is that neither Washington nor Moscow want Ukraine to become a festering wound. Moscow told
Washington, officially, it has no intention of “invading” Ukraine. And
Washington told Moscow that, for all the demented rhetoric, it does not want to
expand NATO to either Ukraine or Georgia.
Whatever Washington’s actions, they
won’t convince the Kremlin the putsch in Kiev was not orchestrated in large
part by goons allied to Kaghanate of Nulands – aka US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nulands. At the same time, the Kremlin knows time is on its
side – so it would be totally counterproductive to even contemplate “invading”
eastern Ukraine.
Compound the vicious catfight among
dodgy factions in Kiev, from fascists to Saint Yulia
“Kill all the Russians” Timoschenko; Gazprom raising the price of natural gas by 80%; and the International
Monetary Fund about to unleash some nasty structural adjustment that will make
Greece look like Cinderella playing in a rose garden, and all that Moscow needs
to do is sit back, relax and watch the (internal) carnage.
The same applies for the Baltics – which, as NATO hysteria would have it, might be
invaded next week. As the Baltics are part of NATO,
then we would really have the Brussels Robocops going
ballistic. Yet only trademark arrogant/ignorant neo-cons believe Moscow will
break complex political/trade relationships with Europe – especially Germany –
risking a hot war over the Baltics. The Germans don’t
want a hot or cold war either. Even in the extremely unlikely event that would
happen, what would macho, macho NATO do, under Pentagon’s orders? Invade
Russian territory?
That does not even qualify as a
lousy joke.
By the way, as bad jokes ago, it’s
hard to top Olli Rehn, vice president of the
Kafkaesque European Commission, stressing that ” in
the interests to maintain peace and stability on our continent” the European
Union is part of the 11 billion euro (US$15 billion) IMF/disaster capitalism
package to plunder, sorry, “help” Ukraine, and this while EU citizens are
unemployed and/or thrown into poverty by the millions.
As for Berlin’s top priority, that
is to at least try to steer the EU out of an almighty crash, which implies
keeping the equally economically devastated Club Med and Central Europe on
board while fighting off the rise and rise of nasty, “normalized” neofascism. “Massive undertaking” does not even begin to
describe it. Why add a confrontation with Moscow to this indigestible
bouillabaisse?
New
axis in the house.
Moral high ground epiphanies such
as this Guardian editorial (“he gained a peninsula but lost a
country”) are pointless. Same for minion Poland freaking out
and asking for more “protection” from the Brussels mafia.
Predictably, Western corporate media
is spinning Putin “blinked” when he phoned US President Barack Obama to try to
set up a solution package – which includes, crucially, a federalization of
Ukraine. The Obama administration – even staffed by astounding mediocrities –
knows this is the only rational way ahead. And no amount of “pressure” will
bend Moscow. Those go-go days of imposing whatever whim over serial drunkard
Boris Yeltsin are long gone. At the same time, Moscow is a realist player
– fully aware that the only possible solution for Ukraine has to be worked out
with Washington.
So Ukraine is essentially a detail – and “Europe” is no more than a helpless bystander.
Who are you gonna
call in “Europe”? That Magritte-style nonentity European
Council President Herman Van Rompuy? Anyone
who’s been to Brussels knows that “Europe” remains a glorified collection of
principalities bickering in a smatter of languages.
Machiavelli would easily recognize it as such.
To top if
off, the Obama administration has no clue what it wants in Ukraine. A “constitutional democracy”? Moscow might even agree with
that, while knowing, based on rows and rows of historical/cultural reasons,
it’s bound to be a failure. The red line though has been spelled out over and
over again: no NATO bases in Ukraine.
Rational players in Washington – a
certified minority – certainly have noticed that if you don’t play ball with
Moscow, Russia will play very hard ball within the framework of the P5+1 (the
UN Security Council permanent members plus Germany) negotiations on the Iranian
nuclear dossier.
Only the blind won’t see that Moscow
and Tehran are evolving towards a closer strategic partnership as much as
Moscow and Beijing. There’s a real strategic geopolitical axis in the house –
Moscow-Beijing-Tehran – and the whole developing world has already noticed
that’s where the real action is. But as far as Ukraine is concerned, the stark
fact is this is all about the US and Russia.
________________
Pepe
Escobar is
the author of Globalistan:
How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble
Books, 2007), Red
Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge and Obama
does Globalistan (Nimble
Books, 2009). He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com.
_______________
F.
From The Real News Network :
Dates: 11 April 2014
Subject: Venezuela, a history lesson.
Mr.
Lander tells Paul Jay that in '98, when he saw the whole of the establishment
getting together to defeat Chavez, he voted for him even though he had a lot of
reasons not to like him.
Venezuela, a History Lesson
(1/4)
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=11723
with Edgardo Lander on Reality Asserts Itself
_______________
G.
From Edward S. Herman :
Dates: 13 April 2014
Subject: Baker on NYT on Russian responsibility for Boston Marathon investigation failure.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sid-l/I53Rj8LhcD4
Francis,
An
enlightening article.
ed h
New Cover-up in
Boston Bombing Saga—Blaming Moscow
http://whowhatwhy.com/2014/04/10/new-cover-boston-bombing-saga-blaming-moscow/
WhoWhatWhy
New
Cover-up in Boston Bombing Saga—Blaming Moscow
by Russ Baker
[This leak, which clears the FBI of all charges of incompetence or worse, comes
just when the “American conversation” will again intensely focus on the nature
of the “war on terror” and the trustworthiness of our vast secret state.]
http://whowhatwhy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Capture1.jpg
[1]
Maybe you heard: the Russians are responsible for the Boston Marathon Bombing. At least indirectly.
That’s what The New York Times says.
Had the Russians told the Americans everything they knew about Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the bombing
might have been averted by the FBI. The *Times *knows this because it was told
so by an anonymous “senior American official” who got an advance look at a
report from the “intelligence community.”
***
Anyone who still entertains the fantasy that America is a vigorous, healthy
democracy with an honest and reliable security apparatus and an honest,
competent, vigilant media need only consider this major news leak just
published as a New York Times
exclusive <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/10/us/russia-failed-to-share-details-on-boston-marathon-bombing-suspect.html>
[2]
It pretty much sums up the fundamental corruption of our institutions, the lack
of accountability, and the deep-dyed complicity of the “finest” brand in
American journalism.
Killing Two Birds with
One Stone.
Just days before the first anniversary of the Boston bombing on April 15, some
unnamed “senior American official” puts the blame for the bombing squarely
on…Vladimir Putin.
It takes a keen understanding of certain members of the American media to know
they will promote, without question, the latest “intelligence community”
version of events. Which is that responsibility for the second largest “terror
attack” after 9/11 should be pinned on the Russians, currently America’s bête noir over Ukraine.
Consider the cynical manipulation of public opinion involved here. The
government permits, presumably authorizes, a high official—the Attorney General
or someone of that status, perhaps even the Vice President—to leak confidential
information for no apparent purpose beyond seeking to put a damper on
legitimate inquiries into the behavior of the American government at the most
fundamental level.
And the world’s vaunted “newspaper of record”—its brand largely based on
insider access and the willingness of powerful figures to give it “hot stuff”
in return for controlling public perceptions— shamelessly runs this leak with
no attempt to question its timing or provenance.
Let’s look at what this article actually says. Here’s the opening paragraph:
The Russian government declined to provide the FBI with information about
one of the Boston marathon bombing
suspects two years before the attack
that likely
would have prompted more extensive scrutiny of the suspect,
according to
an inspector general’s review of how U.S. intelligence and law
enforcement
agencies could have thwarted the bombing.
And here’s the “takeaway”:
While
the review largely exonerates the FBI, it does say that agents in the
Boston area who investigated the
Russian intelligence in 2011 could have
conducted a
few more interviews when they first examined the information.
The FBI agents also could have ordered
turkey sandwiches instead of
pastrami,
which surely would have been a little healthier.
***
So, New York Times, should we trust
the anonymous individual, or more importantly, the report that none of us have
seen?
The
report was produced by the inspector general of the Intelligence Community,
which has responsibility for 17 separate agencies, and the inspectors general
from the Department of Homeland Security and the Central Intelligence Agency.
Now, the Times doesn’t offer any
useful context on why these reviews took place, beyond a pro forma effort to respond to complaints from a handful of
congressional members (see this<http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/10/25/grassley-on-boston-bombing/>
[3] and this<http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/08/01/boston-marathon-bombing-u-s-rep-keating-demands-answers-from-new-fbi-director/>
[4]
The article does not address the quality or credibility of this
“self-investigation” and the overall track record of these investigators.
Nor does it express undue interest in why the report appears to have been
finished just in time for the anniversary of the bombing.
In our view, the article is one hundred percent “stovepiping.”
That’s when claimed raw intelligence is transmitted directly to an end user
without any attempt at scrutiny or skepticism. This is irresponsible
journalism, and it is the kind of behavior (from The New York Times again) that smoothed the way for the U.S. to
launch the Iraq war in 2003.
The Times doesn’t even point
out how self-serving the report is, coming from an “intelligence community”
that has been publicly criticized for its actions leading up to the Boston
Marathon bombing and its behavior since.
(For more on the dozens of major reasons not to trust anything the authorities
say about the Boston Bombing, see this<http://whowhatwhy.com/2014/03/11/9006/>
[6] and this<http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/05/23/officer-collier-shooting-rosebud-moment-of-the-boston-bombing/>
[7]
For perspective on the media’s cooperation with the FBI in essentially
falsifying the Bureau’s record throughout its history, see this : <http://whowhatwhy.com/2014/04/09/media-conned-public-loving-fbi-book-review/>
[8]
Now let’s consider the core substance of the new revelations:
[A]fter an initial investigation by the F.B.I., the Russians
declined several requests for additional information about Mr. Tsarnaev….
Did the Times ask the Russians about
this? Did they find out if the Russians actually “declined” several requests,
or whether they ever got back to the FBI?
The anonymous official notes one specific piece of evidence that the Russians
did not share until after the bombing: that intercepted telephone conversations
between Tamerlan Tsarnaev
and his mother included discussions of Islamic jihad. The official speculates
that this information might have given the FBI greater authority to conduct
surveillance of the suspects.
[image: Capture]<http://whowhatwhy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Capture2.jpg>
[9]
However, the reality is that the Russians had already warned that Tamerlan was an Islamic radical, and it is not clear how
this additional information would necessarily have provided anything truly
substantive to add to a request for spying authority.
It’s
also highly questionable, based in part on Edward Snowden’s revelations,
whether the FBI or the NSA were actually adhering to such restrictions on
spying anyway. Finally, it’s worth noting how truly remarkable it is that the
Russians shared such intelligence at all. That they didn’t want to volunteer
that they were capturing telephone calls is not that surprising, on the other
hand.
Hiding the Real Story?
The
Times does mention, almost in
passing, what should have been the key point of an article: the timing of the
“news” regarding the report:
It has not been made public, but members of Congress are scheduled to be
briefed on it Thursday, and some of its findings are expected to be released
before Tuesday, the first anniversary of the bombings.
This leak, which
clears the FBI of all charges of incompetence or worse, comes just when the
“American conversation” will again intensely focus on the nature of the “war on
terror” and the trustworthiness of our vast secret state.
It also comes,
most conveniently for the Bureau, at the precise moment when Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s defense
counsel has been seeking to learn the exact chronology and nature of the FBI’s
interaction with the Tsarnaev family.
Months
ago, we ran Peter Dale Scott’s rumination, <http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/06/23/was-tamerlan-tsarnaev-a-double-agent-recruited-by-the-fbi/>,
[10]
on whether the FBI could have recruited Tamerlan Tsarnaev as an
informant, as it has done thousands of times before with other immigrants of a
similar profile. Recently, the defense for Tamerlan’s
younger brother, Dzhokhar, essentially claimed this
was correct—that the Bureau at least
attempted to recruit the
older Tsarnaev. That has been cursorily reported by
the major media<http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/03/28/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-attorneys-seek-government-evidence-tamerlan-say-may-help-defense/PJoDIO3Tdf3zIau7VM9m8L/story.html>,
[11]
but no one seems to have connected the dots linking
this claim to the new report that conveniently exonerates the FBI for failing
to take action against the Tsarnaevs in time to stop
the bombing.
A Curious Little Slip.
As we have previously reported, it was the same duo of New York Times’ national security reporters, Schmidt and Schmitt, who
had first, inadvertently it seems, raised a tremendously important question:
when did the Tsarnaev family first come to the
attention of the FBI?
[image: Capture] <http://whowhatwhy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Capture3.jpg>
[12]
The Russian warning to the US about Tamerlan Tsarnaev purportedly came in March 2011.
But
according to an earlier article<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/us/boston-marathon-bombings.html?pagewanted=all>,
[13]
by Schmitt and Schmidt (along with a third reporter),
the Bureau’s first contact with the Tsarnaevs came in
January 2011. Though the *Times *did not make anything of this fact, it would
be enormously
consequential—because it would
mean that the FBI was interacting with theTsarnaevs
two months *before *the Russians suggested the US take a close look at Tamerlan Tsarnaev.
If
that was in error, the Times should
have issued a correction. But it hasn’t. (Neither Schmidt nor Schmitt responded
to WhoWhatWhy’s
emails requesting comment.)
Interestingly,
Schmidt and Schmitt, in subsequent articles, including the recent one, make no
more mention of this early FBI contact. As it stands, the New York Times is on record of having asserted, again based on what
sources told it, that the FBI was interacting with the Tsarnaevs
before the Russians ever contacted it. If that early report was true, then by
definition, the Inspector General’s report (and the leaked article about it)
would be calculated parts of a cover-up about an FBI foul-up.
Conversely, if the early report was in error, then we need to know who provided
it, or how they got that information wrong. Serious investigators know not to
reject anomalies and “wrong” early reports as simply the result of haste or
rumor without at least checking out the possibility that the early reports were
right—but were later suppressed because they might cause problems to someone in
power.
***
It
is worth noting that the revelations in the new report—sure to be picked up by
other media outlets that tend to repeat unquestioningly whatever the Times’ publishes—will be all the average
American remembers about the FBI’s failure to prevent the Marathon bombing, and
what may lie behind that failure.
Most members of the public will never know of the substantial indications that
something is seriously wrong with what the government has put out about this
affair. They will only recall that the FBI was somehow “cleared.” And they will
probably remember that Putin’s Russia was somehow at fault.
In
the final analysis, what we have just witnessed is the kind of arrant
manipulation that shows the contempt of the “system” for the “people.” The
“best” news organization gets another exclusive story. The US government gets
to point its finger again at the Russian bogeyman. The FBI and the security
apparatus get another free pass.
And
the American people, once again, are fed pig slop and told to imagine sirloin.
_______________
H.
From Information Clearing House :
Dates: 12 April 2014
Subject: A House Divided . . . .
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/
Senate committee found CIA interrogations and detentions to be 'brutal'.
Senate Torture
Report Leaked
CIA And White House Under Pressure
by Spencer
Ackerman
and
The CIA’s claim “is BS,” said a
former U.S. official.
CIA’s Use of Torture Went Beyond Legal Authority, Senate Report Rays
by Ali
Watkins, Jonathan S. Landay and Marisa Taylor